Baboons
know what to do when they are threatened by other baboons: they grab the
nearest infant and hold it in front of them. Since baboons dote on their
young, this often serves to deflect violence between adults.

You might say that baboons understand and
employ the same maneuver as do politicians who “support our troops.” Talk
about “the troops” serves as a ready ploy designed to deflect criticism of
the US government’s war against the Iraqi people. By inviting
understandable sympathy for Americans sent to fight and die in Iraq to be
transferred onto the politicians themselves, a kind of moral authority is
conferred upon the war makers and armaments profiteers. That this extension
of sympathy is undeserved, has been repeatedly demonstrated by the offhand
dismissal of GI concerns and willingness to bend every unadvertised clause
and footnote in the contract for military service, to prolong service.

GIs are not stupid. The level of resistance
being shown across Iraq and within the United States itself already far
surpasses what had occurred after a comparable period of time had passed in
the war conducted by this country against the Vietnamese. Only in the last
years of that marathon atrocity did instances of “fragging”—attacks upon
officers by enlisted men—become a matter of public knowledge. This
phenomenon had already surfaced in the Iraq theater, on the eve of the
invasion. (1)

Steve Hesske showed great insight in writing,
“A conscript or draftee Army is much more inclined to the type of sedition
wrought and witnessed in Vietnam which is one of the main reasons America's
military is now all-volunteer. But with the U.S. now the moral arbiter for
the world and a global policeman for capitalistic law and order, even an
all-volunteer force will begin to feel the profound strain of such an
undertaking…” These prophetic words assumed real-life validation in January
of this year, when Lieutenant General James Helmly, commander of the United
States Reserves, warned it was in danger of becoming “a broken force.”
(2) He specifically cited plummeting morale and the obvious
disdain the military has for its pawns, repeatedly extending stays in combat
and utilizing every technicality to dragoon unwilling civilians into the
Iraqi meatgrinder.

Troop morale is especially hard to bolster
when the people you are supposedly “liberating” obviously fear and hate
you. The best US troops can hope for is uncertainty—the very element that
makes being there so dangerous and stressful. As one GI plainly stated the
matter: “It’s hard to look these people in the eye after blowing everything
up. These people were just victims.” (3) That he was
referring to Fallujah is instructive, since that area has now been
“liberated” by being destroyed—a place where returnees find an absence of
security, electricity, or running water. Welcome to the post-Saddam Iraq.

It further complicates matters when the war in
which you are trapped is based on lies and deceptions, as we have seen the
changing “line” twist and turn its sinuous course from White House
disinformation desks. Unsurprisingly, the mail to family and friends from
GIs stationed in Iraq overwhelmingly express their wish to be released from
duty and returned home. (4) It is not hard to see what
“support” really means to these men and women—something very different from
the triumphalist breast-pounding of the corporate flacks who call from the
distance of home for more war in Iraq. The distance between the pro-war
voice of the corporate (“mainstream”) press and the desires of most US
troops is especially notable when considering the fact that even the most
mild and passing criticism of government war makers like Defense Secretary
Rumsfeld brings the risk of punishment to GIs. (5) It is
remarkable, therefore, that disgust with the war, the obvious falsehoods for
which GIs are required to fight and die, and the resultant drop in morale,
have brought an increasingly open chorus of dissent from within the ranks.

In addition to incidents of GI fragging and
complaints to family back home, some members of the military seek political
asylum abroad as conscientious refugees from an evil war. Two prominent
cases are receiving widespread international publicity, with the attorney
defending these AWOL GIs himself being formerly an American resister to the
Vietnam war. (6) Although applying for refugee status in
Canada—as did these two GIs—is a feasible course to pursue, more common are
inquiries by GIs about what rights they have and possible legal relief.
“Anti-war groups report that their hot lines have been flooded by calls from
service members. The ‘GI Rights Hotline’ that counsels service members
logged about 3,500 calls in January and 3,100 in February -- double the
monthly average in 2002.” (7)

While the legal avenues available to GIs are
very restricted, they can take heart from the case of Perry O’Brien,
recently returned to his home in Maine after having served three years of
active duty in Afghanistan. As one of the few who have successfully pursued
application for Conscientious Objector status, his case is exceptional. No
one should get the idea that the military readily hands out C.O. status to
anyone wanting it—but it does happen, and did in the case of this fortunate
and principled young man. (8)

Most impressive is the breadth of the
resistance, sprung from almost nothing in the space of two short years. The
best single online collation of GI resistance may be U.S. War Heroes of the
Iraq War -- War Resisters from within the Military.
(9) Pictures, background, resources, and updates all
appear here. Viewing this is truly inspirational and a real lift to the
morale of all who truly care for Americans sent to die for a lie.

Dan Raphael
has been an activist since the Vietnam war was heating up. He recently
joined the Green Party of the United States.